Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Contrary to popular impression, waterpipes don't necessarily protect smokers from harmful tars in marijuana smoke, according to a study sponsored by California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies). The reason is that waterpipes filter out proportionately more psychoactive THC than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired high. The study does not rule out the possibility that waterpipes could have other benefits, such as filtering out noxious gases, but it suggests that other methods, such as the use of high potency pot, vaporizers, or oral ingestion, are needed to avoid harmful toxins in marijuana smoke.

The study, which was supported by the Drug Policy Foundation and private donors, was conducted at a research lab with expertise in smoking. Researchers tested the smoke from seven different sources: a regular rolled joint, a joint with a cigarette filter, three different waterpipes, and two vaporizers, designed to heat marijuana to a temperature where psychoactive vapors form without producing smoke. The waterpipes included a standard bong, a small portable device with a folding pipestem, and a battery-operated model with a motorized paddle to thoroughly mix the smoke in the water. The first vaporizer, commercially produced in Canada, consisted of a battery-powered metal hot plate inside a jar to trap the marijuana vapor. The second was a home-made, hybrid apparatus, in which vapors were produced by a hot air gun and then drawn through a beaker of water, thereby combining vaporization with water filtration. The smoke was produced from standard NIDA-supplied marijuana drawn through a smoking machine adjusted to mimic the puff length of marijuana smokers.

The study focused on two key components of the smoke: (1) total solid particulates, or tars, which are noxious waste byproducts of burning leaf like those from tobacco; and (2) cannabinoids, the chemicals distinctive to marijuana, including its major psychoactive ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and its two commonest chemical relatives, cannabinol (CBN) and cannabidiol (CBD), which are only weakly psychoactive but may have medical benefits.

Like tobacco, marijuana tars are rich in carcinogenic compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are a prime culprit in smoking-related cancers. However, cannabinoids themselves are not carcinogenic. An obvious way to protect smokers' health is therefore to minimize the content of smoke tars relative to cannabinoids.

One way to do this is to increase the THC potency of the marijuana. Assuming smokers adjust their smoke intake to the cannabinoid dosage, the higher the concentration of cannabinoids, the lower the amount of tars they are likely to consume.

Another strategy is to try to reduce the tars in the smoke with some kind of filtering device. Obviously, this is beneficial only to the extent that THC isn't also reduced, thereby inducing users to smoke more to compensate. A major aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of various smoking devices at reducing the concentration of tars relative to cannabinoids. The performance of each device was accordingly rated in terms of the cannabinoid-to-tar ratio in its smokestream.

Surprisingly, the unfiltered joint outperformed all devices except the vaporizers, with a ratio of about 1 part cannabinoids to 13 parts tar. This disturbingly poor ratio may be explained by the low potency of the NIDA-supplied marijuana used in the study, which was around 2.3%.

Disappointingly, waterpipes performed uniformly worse than the unfiltered joint. The least bad waterpipe, the bong, produced 30% more tar per cannabinoids than the unfiltered joint. Ironically, the pipe with the electric mixer scored by far the worst of any device. This suggests that water filtration is actually counterproductive, apparently because water tends to absorb THC more readily than other, noxious tars.

Like the waterpipes, the cigarette filter also performed worse than the unfiltered joint, by about 30%. Researchers speculate this is because cannabinoids are exceptionally sticky and adhere to other solids. Hence, any filtration system that picks up particulates is likely also to screen out cannabinoids.

The vaporizer results appeared more promising, but confusing. The two vaporizers were the only devices to outscore unfiltered joints in terms of raw cannabinoid/tar ratio. The electric hotplate vaporizer did best, with a performance ratio about 25% higher than the unfiltered joint. The hot air gun was just marginally superior, but might have done better had it not been for its water filtration component.

However, the situation was complicated by the fact that the cannabinoids produced by the electric hotplate vaporizer were unusually high in CBN, leaving 30% less THC. Since CBN is not psychoactive like THC, recreational users might be expected to consume more smoke to make up for the deficit. (The situation may be different for medical users, who could experience other, medicinal benefits from CBN). For this reason, it seemed advisable to recompute the performance efficiencies of the vaporizers in terms of THC, rather than all cannabinoids. When this was done, the electric hotplate vaporizer turned out to have a lower THC/tar ratio than the unfiltered joint, while the hot air gun was still marginally higher.

The reason for the excess CBN from the hotplate vaporizer remains unexplained. Because CBN is produced from THC by chemical oxidation, it has been suggested that the device somehow exposed the sample to too much oxygen. However, there is no evidence that this was the case. As for the second, hybrid vaporizer, it seems likely that its performance could have been improved by deleting its water component.

The results clearly indicate that more developmental work needs to be done on vaporizers. Theoretically, an ideal vaporizer could minimize production of tars by holding the temperature above the point at which THC vaporizes, but below that where carcinogenic hydrocarbons are produced by combustion. In practice, both vaporizers produced over ten times more tars than cannabinoids, indicating that there is plenty of room for improvement.

[God note: There has been much improvement in the ~15 years since this article, more at the bottom.Some boring speculative shit here removed for the tl;dl-ers.]

The study results are obviously discomforting to waterpipe enthusiasts, many of whom prefer the cooler, milder smoke they produce, and have naturally assumed it is also more healthful. Unfortunately, however, the study indicates that waterpipes may actually be counterproductive in increasing consumption of carcinogenic tars.

Nonetheless, it is still premature to judge that waterpipes are actually unhealthful, since they may filter out other, non-solid smoke toxins occurring in the gas phase of the smoke, which was not analyzed in the study. Noxious gases known to occur in marijuana smoke include hydrogen cyanide, which incapacitates the lung's defensive cilia; volatile phenols, which contribute to the harshness of the taste; aldehydes, which promote cancer; and carbon monoxide, a known risk factor in heart disease. Previous studies indicate that water filtration may be quite effective in absorbing some of these [Nicholas Cozzi, "Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review," MAPS Newsletter, Vol. IV #2, 1993]. If so, waterpipes might still turn out to have net health benefits.

In the meantime, the easiest way for most smokers to avoid harmful smoke toxins may be simply to smoke stronger pot. This strategy is apt to be more effective than any smoke filtration device. By simply replacing the low, 2.3% potency NIDA marijuana used in this study with high-quality 12%-sinsemilla, smokers could presumably reduce their tar intake by a factor of five while still achieving the same high. Further improvements could be had by using pure THC or hash oil, which has been tested at potencies of 60%.

The notion that high-potency marijuana is less unhealthful directly contradicts official government propaganda, which maintains that marijuana has become more dangerous since the '60s due to increased potency. This claim appears to rest less on scientific evidence than on the desire to frighten the public. A careful analysis of government data by Dr. John Morgan has shown that the supposed increase in potency has been greatly exaggerated ["American Marijuana Potency: Data Versus Conventional Wisdom," NORML Reports (1994)]. In any case, however, there is no good reason to presume that higher potency marijuana is more harmful, given the potential respiratory benefits of reduced smoke consumption. The hazards of excessive potency are purported to be an increased risk of acute overdose and greater susceptibility to dependency. However, both problems can be avoided if users adjust their dosage to potency. For most users, such hazards may well be outweighed by the benefits of reduced smoke consumption.

There's more at the link, but I started getting bored.

On the topic of improving vapes:

Quote:from hereThe new study used a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GCMS) to examine the gas components of the vapor. .The analysis showed that the Volcano® vapor was remarkably clean, consisting 95% of THC with traces of cannabinol (CBN), another cannabinoid. The remaining 5% consisted of small amounts of three other components: one suspected cannabinoid relative, one suspected PAH, and caryophyllene, a fragrant oil in cannabis and other plants. In contrast over 111 different components appeared in the gas of the combusted smoke, including a half dozen known PAHs. Non-cannabinoids accounted for as much as 88% of the total gas content of the smoke.

The study used standard NIDA cannabis with 4% THC content. A quantitative analysis found that the Volcano® delivered 46% of the THC into vapor following three 45-second exposures of the sample to the heat. This compares favorably with the typical efficiency of marijuana cigarettes as observed in other studies, which depending on conditions can fall below 25% due to loss of THC in sidestream smoke. An important feature of the Volcano® is that it uses a balloon to capture the vapor, thereby avoiding leakage to the air. It is possible that higher THC efficiencies could have been reached with the Volcano® by stirring the sample around and exposing it to more heat.

4% THC is a terrible sample to have to use, and of course the weed should be stirred. Still, I'm impressed by the results, I wouldn't have expected the vapor to be 95% THC! It's also interesting how the only other potentially intoxicating chemical found is one "suspected cannabinoid relative," and in low concentrations. Explains the different high felt with a vape, though.I bet that "suspected PAH" could be basically eliminated by vaping hash oils, depending on its solubility.

one study... make your own decision, but i'm gonna go ahead and say my lungs feel way healthier when i smoke a bong, and i also think depending on the bong and how you hit it, i personally get way higher with a bong... more smoke in less hits... think it hits me faster, and the duration does seem shorter.

do you lose more thc, probably, but you also loose thc to the air when that bowl or joint is burning! in my opinion way more! i can capture all the smoke with the bong if i pack one hitters.

for a daily piece, i prefer it to be water filtration. (haven't tried a good vape yet though.) overall my lungs/throat everything feels healthier. but i also only smoke the best bud

when i want to taste the bud and relax, i'll pull out a glass bowl. (haven't tried a good vape yet though.)

I don't believe that study either. I get higher smoking a smaller amount out of a bong than out of a joint, plus there is no added rolling paper smoke. THC is not water soluble. It does not consider the positive benefits of colder smoke either. Hot smoke damages the throat and makes it susceptible to infection.

I've always figured bongs cant be healthy. I dont use em though, nothing against, just not my cup of tea. I prefer joints or edibles. And i though everybody knew vape's were the most efficient and healthy way

--------------------"Cannabis is not a health problem. The problem is that it promotes social values and attitudes which are unwelcome in capitalist market based society. It's just that simple." - Terence McKenna

Quote:usg543 said:one study... make your own decision, but i'm gonna go ahead and say my lungs feel way healthier when i smoke a bong, and i also think depending on the bong and how you hit it, i personally get way higher with a bong... more smoke in less hits... think it hits me faster, and the duration does seem shorter.

do you lose more thc, probably, but you also loose thc to the air when that bowl or joint is burning! in my opinion way more! i can capture all the smoke with the bong if i pack one hitters.

for a daily piece, i prefer it to be water filtration. (haven't tried a good vape yet though.) overall my lungs/throat everything feels healthier. but i also only smoke the best bud

when i want to taste the bud and relax, i'll pull out a glass bowl. (haven't tried a good vape yet though.)

ha dude im with yuh,my lungs feel a helluva lot better while using a bong, and it hits me straight in the dome when i use my bong, joints and blunts get you baked but their harsh as hell on the lungs and waste a helluva lot more weed. idgaf what that study says you get a helluva lot more and thicker harsher smoke when you smoke a joint.